SCOTUS Judge Nomination Watch

[Red Wind]

Here's a chart on the SCOTUS/Divided Congress results.

Only two Justices were confirmed by Senates of the opposite party of the President. In 1880, William Burnham Woods, nominated by Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) was confirmed by a Democratic Senate. In 1888, Melville Fuller, nominated by Grover Cleveland (a Democrat) was confirmed by a Republican Senate.

 

[joem1945]

It's all political games. He will try to make the GOP the bad guys. His appointments will be just a little south of the constitutional judge the GOP wants. His choice is not quite the liberal the DNC wants but close enough to placate them.

 

[powrguy]

First, there'll never be another Antonin Scalia. Without question, the BEST USSC Justice in my lifetime. I doubt that another Conservative/Originalist would EVER again be confirmed to the Supreme Court. When you have Confirmations of purely political appointees like Kagan and Sotomayer, you can see how bad it's gotten.

That said, the USSC is FUNCTIONALLY supposed to determine the Constitutionality of Questions before it, but it's totally based on IDEOLOGY now....NOT what the Constitution provides, OR Original Intent. The B.S. of "living document" is the same as "fundamental transformation of this Country" that we've seen forced down our throats, and basically having anyone who's self-reliant USED to fund re-election of politicians purely by handouts of taxpayers' money to favored classes and campaign donors. That, in and of itself, is hardly "Constitutional", but that's another story. We can't even have Voter ID, to eliminate fraud in the elections. Gun ownership is gonna become a necessity when the trough runs dry.

We can only hope that the next Appointment has some semblance of someone who would actually FAIRLY cast their vote, but I don't think that's gonna happen, no matter WHO the next President is.

 

[txblackout]

Forget about it. Shut down all Obama nominees. Starting today. The Senate has no Constitutional duty to appoint anyone. No more falling into Obama traps.

Garland is a moderate. The progressives are *pissed*. Obama IS a centrist and is nominating a centrist judge.

When clinton wins I promise you will get someone nominated that is MUCH more progressive than garland.

This is a very interesting game. Obama nominated someone that is not too liberal. The threat is that clinton will nominate someone much more liberal. So the republicans will have to make a tough call.

 

[Red Wind]

In every 5-4 decision in recent times, Garland would have been against gun rights. Just quoted by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News 15 minutes ago.

I will take my chances on the new Prez being a Republican, thank you. And Obama will be a centrist when pigs start to fly.

 

[Praxidike]

In every 5-4 decision in recent times, Garland would have been against gun rights. Just quoted by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News 15 minutes ago.

I will take my chances on the new Prez being a Republican, thank you. And Obama will be a centrist when pigs start to fly.

The smart thing to do is start the process and confirm Obama's nominee when Hillery wins.

 

[Red Wind]

Pessimist! Hillary has more baggage than even American Airlines can handle! She'll never live in the White House again.

Take that to Vegas.

 

[roscoe]

I will take my chances on the new Prez being a Republican, thank you.

Not strategically smart. Trump is extremely unlikely to win the general election, and you can't count on him even if he did (he has supported gun control in the past, before he decided he was a Republican).

I prefer to hedge my bets rather than just throw them to the wind. Not even considering Garland is just tossing it in the air and hoping for a bulls-eye. If Clinton wins, we get a worse nominee and no leverage.

 

[Red Wind]

Would that be the Red Wind you are talking about?! PM me and we can discuss this at length. In the end, I believe my strategy will be the smart manuever.

Time will tell,Roscoe. I do love your handle!

 

[roscoe]

Pessimist! Hillary has more baggage than even American Airlines can handle! She'll never live in the White House again.

Take that to Vegas.

I live in Vegas, and the odds are on Hillary at every bookmaker in town.

 

[Red Wind]

Great. Then I can make a trip to Caesars Palace and you won't have to move a millimeter! It's all good. I should have known a guy named Roscoe was on the Strip!

 

[Red Wind]

BTW,Roscoe, I just looked back and every book in Nevada had Carolina as a 5 to 6 point favorite in Supe #50.

How did that work out for the Wise Guys?

 

[jim in Anchorage]

The smart thing to do is start the process and confirm Obama's nominee when Hillery wins.

You sir win the thread. Great idea!

 

[roscoe]

BTW,Roscoe, I just looked back and every book in Nevada had Carolina as a 5 to 6 point favorite in Supe #50.

How did that work out for the Wise Guys?

They had Rousey as a 200-1 against Holm. But they are rich for a reason, so why take the chance? Play the careful game, I say - gain ground and hold it, don't play all or nothing.

 

[indyogb]

Garland is a moderate. The progressives are *pissed*. Obama IS a centrist and is nominating a centrist judge.

When clinton wins I promise you will get someone nominated that is MUCH more progressive than garland.

This is a very interesting game. Obama nominated someone that is not too liberal. The threat is that clinton will nominate someone much more liberal. So the republicans will have to make a tough call.

I agree with your strategy (drag feet and affirm or decline only when necessary). I agree Hillary is more likely than any of the Republicans to win the Presidency. I will disagree, however, that she is more centrist than Obama. Obama gave us Sotomayor, and the only reason he's pushing Garland is to try and get some political points (he knows the Reps won't want to confirm any of his nominees). I think Clinton would likely nominate a more liberal hawk than Garland, however. She has more "stones" than Obama, and it would be something of a vengeance nomination, I'd guess.

McConnell & Co. broadcasting their strategy was strongly inadvisable. They should have just said "We'll consider any nominee and vote appropriately". Then, vote them down as necessary. Unless, of course, their whole plan was to get a more moderate nominee... in which case, they better take Garland while they can .

As to Garland, himself: he seems more reasonable than I would have hoped to expect from an Obama nominee. He seems less "judicial activist" and more "pragmatist" than Kagan, and certainly more than Sotomayor. I've gone back and forth on him already. I'd say, string this along as long as possible - if Trump's odds suddenly improve, maybe vote him down. If, the odds continue to look like Clinton will win, I'd say vote and confirm the guy.

We'd never get another Scalia confirmed, anyway (assuming President Trump would nominate such a justice). What we saw as "Constitutional originalism" has been described as "racist bigotry" in many circles.

 

[Praxidike]

I agree with your strategy (drag feet and affirm or decline only when necessary). I agree Hillary is more likely than any of the Republicans to win the Presidency. I will disagree, however, that she is more centrist than Obama. Obama gave us Sotomayor, and the only reason he's pushing Garland is to try and get some political points (he knows the Reps won't want to confirm any of his nominees). I think Clinton would likely nominate a more liberal hawk than Garland, however. She has more "stones" than Obama, and it would be something of a vengeance nomination, I'd guess.

McConnell & Co. broadcasting their strategy was strongly inadvisable. They should have just said "We'll consider any nominee and vote appropriately". Then, vote them down as necessary. Unless, of course, their whole plan was to get a more moderate nominee... in which case, they better take Garland while they can .

As to Garland, himself: he seems more reasonable than I would have hoped to expect from an Obama nominee. He seems less "judicial activist" and more "pragmatist" than Kagan, and certainly more than Sotomayor. I've gone back and forth on him already. I'd say, string this along as long as possible - if Trump's odds suddenly improve, maybe vote him down. If, the odds continue to look like Clinton will win, I'd say vote and confirm the guy.

We'd never get another Scalia confirmed, anyway (assuming President Trump would nominate such a justice). What we saw as "Constitutional originalism" has been described as "racist bigotry" in many circles.

My bet is that all of Hillary's nominees will be far left women, and will be a lot worse than Garland. You bet all of the above will lean towards gun control. Either way, the future doesn't look to bright for gun rights, SCOTUS, or the presidency IMHO. I think the majority of pro-gun and conservative voters have squandering a huge and important opportunity this election. Now it's just a waiting game for the ball to drop...